He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

meindzai wrote:The description of D.O. that appears in the suttas certainly refers to the three lifetime model, as words like "Death" and "Birth" are pretty unambiguous:

True but the buddha used to types of language, everyday language and dhamma language. Birth in dhamma language just means the birth of "I" at any moment not physical birth, the same for death means death of the "I" at any moment in dhamma language.

Nonsense. I don't know how he could be more specific in his definitions of Birth and Death. "dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death." and "The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth" What else could he possibly say that would make it any clearer?

Also it states that the cesstation of dependent origination involves the ending of name and form, if this meant literal name and form then the buddha would have died when he became enlightened would he not?

No, becuase not all cause and effect is immediate. Remember the simplified form of dependent coarising is:

When this is, that is. [immediate cause and effect]From the arising of this comes the arising of that. [cause and effect over time]

And in reverse:When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

So parts of dependent co-arising have effects over time as well as immediate effects.

I screencapped this from a link that retro provided in a post elsewhere. It's the clearest three lives diagram I've seen (the circular ones confuse me)

The present life is shaped from the conditions from the previous life. So 3-10 are happening now, as a result of 1 and 2 from the previous lifetime. But that doesn't mean ONLY 3-10 are happening now. 1 and 2 are happening now which is conditioning future birth. 11 has already occured in thsi lifetime as well as some...varying degree of 12.

D.O. happening ONLY in this lifetime doesn't make sense becuase birth ultimately has a condition in ignorance. If there were no ignorance, you would not have been born at all - you just simply would not be here reading this. However, in order for you to have had any kind of ignorance in that prior lifetime, there had to be a previous birth, and so on. However this doesn't mean that only certain parts of D.O. are happening now and others are not.

You have already studied and read about paticcasamuppada (Dependent Origination) in the books, and what's set out there is correct as far as it goes, but in reality you're not able to keep up with the process as it actually occurs. It's like falling out of a tree: in a flash, you've fallen all the way from the top of the tree and hit the ground, and you have no idea how many branches you passed on the way down. When the mind experiences an arammana [1] (mind-object) and is attracted to it, all of a sudden you find yourself experiencing a good mood without being aware of the causes and conditions which led up to it. Of course, on one level the process happens according to the theory described in the scriptures, but at the same time it goes beyond the limitations of the theory. In reality, there are no signs telling you that now it's avijja, now it's sankhara, then it's viññana, now it's nama-rupa and so on. These scholars who see it like that, don't get the chance to read out the list as the process is taking place. Although the Buddha analysed one moment of consciousness and described all the different component parts, to me it's more like falling out of a tree – everything happens so fast you don't have time to reckon how far you've fallen and where you are at any given moment. What you know is that you've hit the ground with a thud, and it hurts!

To study is to know the texts,To practice is to know your defilements,To attain the goal is to know and let go.

[/quote] Nonsense. I don't know how he could be more specific in his definitions of Birth and Death. "dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death." and "The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth" What else could he possibly say that would make it any clearer?

D.O. happening ONLY in this lifetime doesn't make sense becuase birth ultimately has a condition in ignorance. If there were no ignorance, you would not have been born at all - you just simply would not be here reading this. However, in order for you to have had any kind of ignorance in that prior lifetime, there had to be a previous birth, and so on. However this doesn't mean that only certain parts of D.O. are happening now and others are not.

-M

However it is said that becoming and birth come from contact, craving and then clinging. Therefore it does show that everymoment there is contact there is feeling and if one is ignorant then it becomes craving then clining and then birth. Now we have contact all the time and if we arent mindful there will be craving all the time and so therefore continuous birth. This obviously means moment births not literal birth as there can only be one physical birth in one life but there can be multiple "I" births at everymoment that there is contact, feeling and then craving.

It does make sense when you look at how there is contact at everymoment which obviously leeds to feeling and then craving if you are ignorant which then leeds to clinging, becoming, birth ......[/quote]

Also the buddha stated that one could end all dukkha right now in this very life. If you take this and apply it to the three lives model this become untenable as you then have to state that for this to work that name and form etc would have to cease in that moment which leads you back to say that the buddha would have just died under the bodhi tree. This statement by him only works if you take D.O. as moment to moment not three lives.

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

You have already studied and read about paticcasamuppada (Dependent Origination) in the books, and what's set out there is correct as far as it goes, but in reality you're not able to keep up with the process as it actually occurs. It's like falling out of a tree: in a flash, you've fallen all the way from the top of the tree and hit the ground, and you have no idea how many branches you passed on the way down. When the mind experiences an arammana [1] (mind-object) and is attracted to it, all of a sudden you find yourself experiencing a good mood without being aware of the causes and conditions which led up to it. Of course, on one level the process happens according to the theory described in the scriptures, but at the same time it goes beyond the limitations of the theory. In reality, there are no signs telling you that now it's avijja, now it's sankhara, then it's viññana, now it's nama-rupa and so on. These scholars who see it like that, don't get the chance to read out the list as the process is taking place. Although the Buddha analysed one moment of consciousness and described all the different component parts, to me it's more like falling out of a tree – everything happens so fast you don't have time to reckon how far you've fallen and where you are at any given moment. What you know is that you've hit the ground with a thud, and it hurts!

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

meindzai wrote:Nonsense. I don't know how he could be more specific in his definitions of Birth and Death. "dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death." and "The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth" What else could he possibly say that would make it any clearer?

Meindzai

The Buddha has advised us dependent origination is the dhamma. "He who sees the dhamma sees dependent origination". Now if we cannot find emptiness in dependent origination, it is not the dhamma.

Our goal of practise is to understand how 'self view' arises. If we are unable to discern that, we cannot end suffering and realise the four noble truths.

When we attach to life as "I" and "mine" the ordinary sense of 'birth' and 'death' arise. When we have a problem we think "why was I born?". When we are aging and dying, we think "I am dying". This is suffering.

The Buddha has clearly advised us that those who are free from self-view, who are free from "I making" and "my making", are free from birth, aging, illness, death & dukkha.

If one is encouraging Buddhists to move away from comprehending the origin & nature of attachment, self-view & dukkha, then one's intention is contrary to the Lord Buddha.

That is my sincere opinion.

When I first learned Dhamma, I was encouraged to identify the causes of suffering & suffering itself, which are connected to craving, attachment & self-view.

If we cannot identify these things in dependent origination then dependent origination is not the core dhamma the Buddha said it was.

With metta,

Element

Last edited by Element on Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

clw_uk wrote:However it is said that becoming and birth come from contact, craving and then clinging. Therefore it does show that every moment there is contact there is feeling and if one is ignorant then it becomes craving then clining and then birth. Now we have contact all the time and if we arent mindful there will be craving all the time and so therefore continuous birth. This obviously means moment births not literal birth as there can only be one physical birth in one life but there can be multiple "I" births at everymoment that there is contact, feeling and then craving.

Also the buddha stated that one could end all dukkha right now in this very life. If you take this and apply it to the three lives model this become untenable as you then have to state that for this to work that name and form etc would have to cease in that moment which leads you back to say that the buddha would have just died under the bodhi tree. This statement by him only works if you take D.O. as moment to moment not three lives.

Well reasoned. Indeed. If birth was physical birth, physical birth would be occuring after each ignorant contact.

Element wrote:If one is encouraging Buddhists to move away from comprehending the origin & nature attachment, self-view & dukkha, then one's intention is contrary to the Lord Buddha. Element

Where did Meindzai encourage anyone to move away from comprehending those things?

MettaMike

Mike

Meindzai has stated 'birth' is physical birth and 'death&dukkha' are physical death. Others have stated birth is the birth of 'self-view' and death is the sense of loss that becomes dukkha.

Today, now, before my physical death, I have dukkha. For example, I wake up this morning and my bicycle is stolen. Plus, I must go to work and deal with all kinds of demands and difficulties. Plus, my wife is sick in hospital. I have all of these difficulties or potential objects of suffering but according to the reasoning of Meindzai, I have no method to remedy this suffering because dukkha in dependent origination relates to physical birth & death.

So to solve my problems, it appears I must kill my wife, kill my clients and co-workers and kill myself because I cannot get to work.

Dependent origination is explaining to us how dukkha arises from ignorance. The first condition is ignorance and the final result is dukkkha.

Thus, when my bicycle is stolen, how is the dukkha of that related to physical birth?

The dukkha of my bicycle is related to my possessiveness towards it. I regard that bicycle as "I" and "mine". I took birth as the owner of "my bicycle" and now because it is stolen I must experience the death of that state of being. However, if I do not regard that bicycle as "I" and "mine", I do not take birth as the owner of a bicycle. The bicycle is merely dhamma, merely elements of nature, a gift I merely borrow until its decay & death.

There is a sutta that i think gives weight to the view of D.O. as moment to moment and not three lives.

MN - 44:

Saying, "Yes, lady," Visakha the lay follower delighted & rejoiced in what Dhammadinna the nun had said. Then he asked her a further question: "'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

"'The way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification, the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"Precisely this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration: This, friend Visakha, is the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

"Is it the case, lady, that clinging is the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates or is it something separate?"

"Friend Visakha, neither is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it something separate. Whatever desire & passion there is with regard to the five clinging-aggregates, that is the clinging there."

This clearly states that Identitiy i.e. self/i/me comes about through craving as craving will lead to clinging which leeds to being which leeds to birth.As craving dependens on feeling which the dependeds on contact birth must mean moment to moment birth as there is always contact with the 6 sense bases. This will lead to feeling and if there is ignorance then there will be craving, clinging, being and "birth" of a new false view of Self which is dukkha.

Hope that makes sense

The dogmatists have claimed to have found the truth, others say that it cannot be apprehended; the Sceptics continue the search. Sextus Empiricus

Your logic eludes me also. Buddha said dukkha occurs after death. I can have dukkha right now, today yet not die physically.

On seeing a form with the eye, he is passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is angry with it if it is displeasing. He lives with mindfulness to the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding on to it. As he does so, delight (nandi) arises in him. Now, delight in feelings (vedanàsu nandi) is clinging (upàdàna). Becoming is conditioned by his clinging; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing-&-death; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of suffering.

clw_uk wrote:There is a sutta that i think gives weight to the view of D.O. as moment to moment and not three lives.

MN - 44:

Saying, "Yes, lady," Visakha the lay follower delighted & rejoiced in what Dhammadinna the nun had said. Then he asked her a further question: "'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

Hope that makes sense

Well quoted. Sadhu! The Buddha's teaching always makes perfect sense. Theravadins chant each day: "Svakato bhagavata dhammo - that Dhamma, perfectly spoken by the Blessed One". In my opinion, there is no need to add to the Buddha's dhamma.

No, becuase not all cause and effect is immediate. Remember the simplified form of dependent coarising is:

When this is, that is. [immediate cause and effect]From the arising of this comes the arising of that. [cause and effect over time]

And in reverse:When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

So parts of dependent co-arising have effects over time as well as immediate effects.

I screencapped this from a link that retro provided in a post elsewhere. It's the clearest three lives diagram I've seen (the circular ones confuse me)

The present life is shaped from the conditions from the previous life. So 3-10 are happening now, as a result of 1 and 2 from the previous lifetime. But that doesn't mean ONLY 3-10 are happening now. 1 and 2 are happening now which is conditioning future birth. 11 has already occured in thsi lifetime as well as some...varying degree of 12.

D.O. happening ONLY in this lifetime doesn't make sense becuase birth ultimately has a condition in ignorance. If there were no ignorance, you would not have been born at all - you just simply would not be here reading this. However, in order for you to have had any kind of ignorance in that prior lifetime, there had to be a previous birth, and so on. However this doesn't mean that only certain parts of D.O. are happening now and others are not.

Your logic eludes me also. Buddha said dukkha occurs after death. I can have dukkha right now, today yet not die physically.

How does my logic elude you? I simply stated that there is no contradiction between causes and effects happening within one lifetime and causes and effects happening between lifetimes. This spelled out quite clearly in the Abhidhamma.